beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.11.04 2020나34361

손해배상금

Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. At around 19:20 on Nov. 14, 2014, the Plaintiff divided the content of “F” with respect to “E, the President, E, E, and H, E, E, E, and E, for reasons of the appointment of power corruption” (No. 2 subparag. 1 page) and “E, E, the head of J, E, and H T, the head of J, E, and H, the head of which were pregnant in G in 1979, G in 1979, and H T, the head of J, the head of J, and the head of E, the head of E, the head of E, E, E, the head of N,O, P, G, and the head of E, the head of E, the head of E, the head of E, the head of E, the head of E, the head of E, the head of E, and the head of E, the head of E, the head of E, the employee of E, the head of E, and the employee.

B. At the time of the aforementioned distribution, the Defendant, who was the party watched of Q party in Gwangju City, received the printed matter distributed to the said D, and accused the Plaintiff as defamation under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act at the Gwangju Mine Police Station around November 18, 2014.

C. At the end of the investigation following the above accusation, the Plaintiff is against the Seoul Northern District Court.

The Defendant was indicted as a charge of defamation by publicly alleging false facts about E through the distribution of printed materials listed in the Paragraph (1) (hereinafter “relevant criminal case”), and the first instance court convicted the Plaintiff on November 20, 2015.

However, on May 27, 2016, the appellate court rendered a judgment not guilty of all the charges of defamation of false facts (2015No. 971) against E, on the ground that the facts charged in the instant case and the concurrent charges of defamation of false facts (2015No. 971), on the grounds that, rather than stating a specific fact in light of the method and context of expression of the overall printed matter, it merely causes a degradation of social assessment by putting an insulting testimony into an insulting testimony, and does not constitute defamation crime.

[Seoul Northern District Court 2015No1166, 2238(combined)] and this is November 2017.